UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE DISASTER RESEARCH CENTER

PRELIMINARY PAPER #29

ORGANIZATIONAL ADAPTATION TO CRISES: MECHANISMS OF COORDINATION

AND STRUCTURAL CHANGE

Russell R. Dynes and

B.E. Aguirre

November 1976

'f

Introduction

Much of social life is so structured that behavior occurs rather

Most of the time, established and standardized procedures routinely.

are followed, manifesting themselves in the habitual behavior of in-

dividuals and/or the traditional actions of groups. At times however

internal and/or external factors generate enough stress and strain so

that it is possible to think of responding entities as being in a state

of crisis. Crises require the reworking of established and standardized

procedures or the creation of new means as well as of organizations for

carrying them out.

and organizations is for certain aspects of energent behavior to be

combined with elements of routinized organizational behavior.

In large part, the direction of response of groups

(Dynes

. and Quarantelli, 1968; Brouilette and Quarantelli 1969; Dynes 1970)

This paper seeks to extend the explanation of these types of

adaptation by using existing organizational theory. In particular it

looks at the mechanisms whereby organizations are coordinated and shows

how crisis situations produce certain structural modifications which have

implications for coordination. The intent is to provide sociological

explanations for what is traditionally described as'emcrgent phenomena.

It argues that much of what has been called emergent can be explained

by (1) the heightened necessity for organizational coordination during

crisis situations, (2) the conditions which make for changes in the

communication patterns within emergency organizations and (3) the con-

sequences the changes in communication patterns have for organizational

coordination. These changes can be explained using standard organiza-

tional variables which are applicable to a wide range of types or

organizations and organizational environments, not just organizations

in emergencies. After establishing that theoretical orientation, we

will come back to its application in crisis situations.

Theoretical Orientation

The theoretical orientation used here was derived from Hage, Aiken

and Marrett (1971), in which organizational coordination is related to , I the internal structure of an organization. It argues that the type of

coordination predominant in an organization is determined by its

diversity and its internal distribution of power and status. ihile

the theory was originally tested in a non-disaster context, the types

of varibles specified are particularly significant in changes which

occur in this crisis context.

One central concern in organizations is coordination. Coordin-

ation can be seen as the degree to which there are adequate linkages

among organizational parts, i.e., among specific task performances as

well as among subunits of the organization, so that organizational

objectives can be accomplished (Hage, Aiken, and Piarrett 1971).

Organizations can be coordinated by plan and by feedback.

is based on pre-established schedules and programs directing and stan-

The former

dardizing the functioning of orgnaizations, while the latter is centered

3

in the transmission of new information so as to facilitate the mutual

adjustment of parts.

The two types- of coordination are based on different assumptions

about the nature of conformity to organizational objectives. In

coordination by feedback the activities of organizational members are

seen as regulated externally by a system of rewards ensuring social

control.

obvious and sanctions can be applied with little ambiguity.

If there is a clear blueprint for action, departures are

In co-

ordination by feedback errors detected in task performance are corrected

by the provision of new information.

result of internalized standards of professional excellence among the

personnel brought about by occupational peer group pressures.

summary, coordination by plan relies on external control over organ-

.Social control is seen as ;the

In

izational members while coordination by feedback is more dependent on

internal control.

Clearly, these two types of coordination are ideal const-ructs.

In reality, complex organizations use a mixture of the two. It is

possible, however, to identify Organizational variables which would

be associated with one or the other mechanisms of coordinaticn.

Aiken and Marrett identify three: (a) uncertainty of tasks, (b) di-

versity, or the relative number of different occupations in an organ-

Hage,

ization and their degree of professional specialization, and (c) the

distribution of power and status within orgnaizations. They argue

that organizational coordination through feedback is more probable

as the diversity and the variety and uncertainty of tasks increases.

4

In the former case no one standard set of administrative guidelines

and sanctions can regulate the activity of professionals appropriately -

and entirely. The latter puts a premium on the rapid exchange of in-

formation among organizational personnel.

information and its directional diversification, with horizontal com-

The growth of the volume of c

munication increasing as a result of these changes, renders coordin-

ation via planning improbable.

One way to understand coordination.by feedback is to see it as a

process whereby a high volume of communication of information is pro-

cessed relevant to the work of the organization. The feedback would

involve information from different parts of the organization. Thus,

factors which would increase the volume and direction of comunication

would increase the probability of coordination by feedback.

The probability of coordination via planning increases, however? with

greater differences in power andstatus in organizations; the greater the

hierarchical positional distance among personnel the less thc! extent

of communication among them. External environmental factors such as

homogeneity and stability are important determinants of internal struc-

tural variation. Previous studies would suggest (March and Simon, 1958;

James Thompson, 1967; Perrow, 1967; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967) that

stability of environment leads to routine technology and coordination

by plan.

To summarize, the following propositions as suggested:

1. The greater the diversity of organizational structure, the

5

greater the emphasis on coordination by feedback.

2. The greater the difference in status and power within an -

organization , the greater the emphasis on coordination through planning.

3.

the greater the emphasis on coordination by feedback.

The greater the uncertainty of an organizational environment,

Research on Organizational Behavior in Crises

The analysis of the activities of groups and organizations in

crisis situations have predominantly centered so far on the notion of

emergence. Initially, this was a reaction against the prevailing views

of social structure, which were too static to capture the behavior

which was observed in the field. Many organizational theories had as

a focus .some notion of bureaucratic structure where the organization

was. seen as an entity with clear cut boundaries, definite meabership,

formal roles, established lines of authority and specific tasks. This

was too static a notion to describe organized behavior in emergency.

Dynes and Quarantelli (1968) derived a typology of group and

organizational behavior in crises from a cross classification of the

(a) nature of the disaster tasks undertaken by groups and organizations

and (b) their evergency period structure.

of group behavior:

They identified four types*

f . . ..

6

Figure I. Types of Group Behavior in Disasters

Re gu 1 ar

TASKS - Non-regular

Old Type I Type 111 (Es tab 1 ish ed) (Extending) Structure

Type I1 Type IV (Erne rgen t ) New

(Expand i ng)

These two key variables point to differences in emergency operations

when some group tasks may be old, routinely assigned, everyday ones

or, on the other hand, the tasks may be new, novel, assumed or unusual

ones. In addition, some groups and organizations operate in the emer-

gency with an old or existing structure in which organizatiol~al members

stand in definite kinds of pre-disaster relationships with 011e another

in reference to work, as opposed to those who operate with a new

crisis-developed structure.

The typolpgy has been useful to account for the admixture of

institutionalized and non-institutionalized behavior observed in

emergency situations. It has been used to discuss the mobilization and

recruitment of these groups and to identify types of problems such

groups experience in task accomplishment, communication, authority and

decision making. (Dynes, Chap. 7, 1970). In addition, the types have

been used by Quarantelli and Brouilette (1971) as a basis for indicatine

7

what types of pattern d variations occur in the adaptation of bureau-

cratic structures t'o organizational stress.

bureaucracies may exhibit all four patterns in a given situation.

They suggest that complex -

That

is, some segments o.f it may operate as an established group while other

segments may be involved as an emergent group with non-regular tasks.

This is seen as a specific example of the debureaucratization process

Eisenstadt (1959: 302-320) and others have described.

While the typology has been useful-as an explanatory device, it is

* . necessary to provide other lines of explanation for crisis adaptations,

either between or within groups and organizations. The typology de-

pends much on the notion of emergency of new structures and tasks as

a major factor in these adaptations. The identification of mergence,

however, without properly providing for some sociological explanation,

often leads to the conclusion that while the behavior of established

organizations can be explained sociologically, einergent phenoncna can- I

not. Emergent phenomena are often treated as atypical and aEociologita1.

We now turn to emergence adaptations within organizations.

analyzed emergence adaptations at the individual (Kearney, 1572; Wolf,

Others have

1975) and group levels (Parr, 19G9; Anderson, 1970; Forrest: 1973; 1974;

. Teuber, 1973; Perry et. al., 1974).

Application of the Theoretical Orientation to Previous Conceptualizations of Emergence Adaptation in Organizations

The theoretical orientation presented here has certain implications

for organizational functioning in crisis. In general, crisis conditions

cause organizational structure to move in the direction of coordination

by feedback and away from coordination by plan. Moreover, crisis

produces the conditions whereby the rate of communication increases as--

does the proportion of horizontal task communication.

Disaster creates extreme environmental uncertainty for organiza-

. tions and thus makes coordination by feedback more probable. Too, the

major variables used in the previous typology center around new tasks

and new structures. Either the acceptance by organizations of new tasks

or of new personnel, or both, creates greater organizational diversity,

thereby making for the conditions for a greater emphasis on coordination

'

I

by feedback. Also, a number of observers of emergency situations

(see Dynes 1970) have commented on the status leveling effect of dis-

aster. While this effect is often described as a community vide phen-

omena, it is also applicable within organizations where previous status

differences tend to be minimized. In effect, then, all of t1.e con-

ditions and consequences of functioning of organizations during the

emergency period tend to move toward coordination by feedback and away

from coordination by plan.

Looking more specifically at the consequences of change in organiza-

tional structure and their implications for patterns of conlmtnication, all

of the changes during the emergency period would seem to increase the rate

of task communication and the proportion of horizontal task comniunication.

The acceptance of new tasks or new structure would increase organiza-

tional complexity, decrease the degree of formalization and decrease the

degree of centralization. These changes, which increase the ::ate and dir-

ection of communication, in turn would facilitate coordination by feedback.

. .. . - .

9

While usually described simply as emergent phenomena, organiza-

tional adaptation in crisis contexts seem to be accounted for by rather

standard sociological variables and relationships creating the conditions

affecting organizational coordination. It is not by chance that Type IV

in the typalogy is often illustrated by a group whose function is

purely one of coordination. These factors also suggest the great

difficulty of Type I (Established organizations) in maintaining their

predisaster coordination structure, since it is usually coordination by

plan. Coordination by plan characterizes many of the traditional

emergency organizations, such as police and fire departments. This

schema explains why such organizations often "refuse" nontraditional

tasks in disaster situations and usually have great difficulty in

utilizing volunteers. In effect, their predisaster model of coordin-

ation would not "allow" such changes. Rather than increase their

capabilities to meet the increased demands, such organizations tend to

accept only those demands which are within their present capabilities.

With continuity of regular structure and tasks, such organizations are

able to keep their previous coordination patterlls intact. 011 the other

hand, rejected demands by some organizations have to be absorbed by

others within The community, and they are more likely to be effectively

handled by emergent new groups or by. those organizations which coordin-

ate by feedback,

/

.

Established organizations experience organizational strain. When L

most of the organizations in emergency operations are moving toward

coordination by feedback, established organizations are, in many ways,

10

;r .

"out of step." Th-re is a discontinuity ,n their attempt to maintain

internal coordination by plan when the conditions relating to the

emergency period are such as to move most other organizations further

toward coordination by feedback. Such a discontinuity, in turn,

creates significant problems in the attempt of the community system

to provide overall coordination.

In sum, then, the structural conditions of the emergency period

make for uncertainty, diversity, decreased formalization and decentral-

ization. These changes increase communication. The non-routine nature

of disaster tasks and the increased complexity of organizations require

coordination by feedback.

cribed as emergent but now they can be explained as being conditioned

These shifts have been traditionally des-

by those sociological factors which affect coordination.

Implications for Policy

Research and conceptualization in organizational response to

crises is one area which has rather direct policy implications. It is

useful to make a note of an interesting paradox

suggested here are compared with current policy with reference to

when the findings

emergency plan'ning. In the United States, emergency plannin;: is pre-

dominantly the responsibility of local government units.

somewhat diverse, there is great consistency in the direction taken by

kThile it is

emergency planning. Most is oriented toward increasing the central-

ization of authority and the formalization of procedures. In other

words, coordination by plan is considered to be normative. This mode

of coordination is seen as most appropriate, since a military model of

11

organizational functioning in crises is assumed to be most effective for -

such cSrcumstances. In addition, ,planning is directed toward the devel-

opment of social control mechanisms, i.e., rewards and punishments, to

implement this mode of coordination. These assumptions of emergency

planning are seldom questioned, since many individuals engaged in such

planning arc recruited on the basis of their previous military exper-

ience or come from municipal agencies, which operate routinely by

coordination by plan.

On the basis of what has been described here, the dominance of a

normative planning model which emphasises coordination by plan is, at

best, questionable. The crisis event itself creates the conditions

where coordination by plan is inappropriate. This inappropriateness,

however, is not likely to be challenged in post-disaster critiques of

. organizational functioning, because the n o r m used to judge organiza-

tional effectiveness are such as to lead to negative evaluations of

organizations which utilize coordination by feedback. The tremendous

increase in communication is taken as a failure of coordination, not

as a condition necessary for it.

paradox, it does not have to be perpetuat’d.

While this is currently a widespread

Emergency planning can

also be directed toward improving and facilitating coordination by

feedback, since it: is likely to be the dominant node in emergency

conditions.

.

12

Notes

JCType I is an established group carrying out regular tasks. This

is exemplified by a city police force directing traffic around the

impact zone after a tornado has struck a community.

Type I1 is an expanding group with regular tasks. The group fre-

II quently exists on "paper, not as an ongoing organization prior to the

disaster event, and would be illustrated by Red Cross volunteers run-

ning a shelter after a hurricane.

Type I11 is an extending group which undertakes nonregular tasks.

This is illustrated by a construction company utilizing its men and

equipment to dig through debris during rescue operations.

Type IV is an emergent group which becomes engaged in nonregular

tasks. An example is an ad hoc group made up of the city engineer,

county civil defense director, local representative of the state high-

way department and a Colonel from the Corps of Engineers who coordinate

the overall community response during a flood.

. . -

I

I I

References

13

- Brouilette, John and E. L. Quarantelli

1971 "Types of Patterned Variation in Bureaucratic Adaptations to Organizational Stress ," Sociological Inquiry, 41, Winter: 39-46.

Dynes, Russell R. and E. L. Quarantelli 1968 "Group Behavior Under Stress: A Required Convergence of

Organizational and Collective Behavior Perspectives," Sociology an3 Social Research, 52 :416-429.

Organized Behavior in Disaster, Lexington:

I1 Bureaucracy, Bureaucratization and Debureaucratization" Administrative Science Quarterly, 4:302-320.

Dynes, Russell R. and E. L. Quarantelli

Eisenstadt, S. N.

1970 D.C. Heath.

1959

Forrest, T. R. 1973 "Needs and Group Emergence Developing a Welfare Response,"

Disaster Research Center Reprint #77. This arti.cle is also available in American Behavioral Scientist, 16 (3) 1973:

r 413-425.

Forrest, T. R. 1974

It Structural Differentiation in Emergent Groups ,If Disaster Research Center Report Series, No. 15.

Hage, Jerald, Michael Aiken and Cora Narrett 197 I II organizational Structure and Communication," American

Sociological Review, 36 (October) :3.60-71.

"Uncoordinated Collective Response: The Buffalo Creek Hollow Dam Break Disaster of February 26, 1972," Disaster Research Center Working Paper #45.

Kearney , . M. 1972

Lawrence, PauL and Joy Lorsch 1967 Organization and Environment, Boston, Graduate School of

Business Adminis trati6n.

March, James and Herbert Simon 1958 Organizations. New York, John Wiley.

Parr, A. R. 1969 Group Emergence in Cor:munity Crises:_

Unpub

A Studv of Conditions COndu-;--- a- - , l - -

.

Thompson, James 196 7 Organization in Action, New York: Alfred Knopf.

Thompson, James 196 7 Organization in Action, New York: Alfred Knopf.

I Wolf, Charlotte 1975 "Group Perspective Formation and Strategies of Identity in a Post-threat Situation," The Socioloqical Quarterlv, 16 (Summer) :401-414.

.